AutoMonitor-Bench: Evaluating the Reliability of LLM-Based Misbehavior Monitor
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce AutoMonitor-Bench, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the reliability of LLM-based misbehavior monitors across diverse tasks and failure modes. AutoMonitor-Bench consists of 3,010 carefully annotated test samples spanning question answering, code generation, and reasoning, with paired misbehavior and benign instances. We evaluate monitors using two complementary metrics: Miss Rate (MR) and False Alarm Rate (FAR), capturing failures to detect misbehavior and oversensitivity to benign behavior, respectively. Evaluating 12 proprietary and 10 open-source LLMs, we observe substantial variability in monitoring performance and a consistent trade-off between MR and FAR, revealing an inherent safety-utility tension. To further explore the limits of monitor reliability, we construct a large-scale training corpus of 153,581 samples and fine-tune Qwen3-4B-Instruction to investigate whether training on known, relatively easy-to-construct misbehavior datasets improves monitoring performance on unseen and more implicit misbehaviors. Our results highlight the challenges of reliable, scalable misbehavior monitoring and motivate future work on task-aware designing and training strategies for LLM-based monitors.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2026.
Builds on
29 of 58 references.
References · 29
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2021GLM: General Language Model Pretraining with Autoregressive Blank Infillingcited by 1,026
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 354
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 136
17 more
- 2025HalluLens: LLM Hallucination Benchmarkcited by 88
- 2024Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigationcited by 77
- 2025Understanding Aha Moments: from External Observations to Internal Mechanismscited by 48
- 2023Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?cited by 39
- 2024BEARS Make Neuro-Symbolic Models Aware of their Reasoning Shortcutscited by 36
- 2025Future of Work with AI Agents: Auditing Automation and Augmentation Potential across the U.S. Workforcecited by 33
- 2025Fraud-R1 : A Multi-Round Benchmark for Assessing the Robustness of LLM Against Augmented Fraud and Phishing Inducementscited by 31
- 2024Who Wrote This? The Key to Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detection Is GECScorecited by 27
- 2025Flattery in Motion: Benchmarking and Analyzing Sycophancy in Video-LLMscited by 20
- 2025Model-agnostic Adversarial Attack and Defense for Vision-Language-Action Modelscited by 19
- 2025When Modalities Conflict: How Unimodal Reasoning Uncertainty Governs Preference Dynamics in MLLMscited by 18
- 2025Goal-oriented Backdoor Attack against Vision-Language-Action Models via Physical Objectscited by 16
- 2025Is Your LLM-Based Multi-Agent a Reliable Real-World Planner? Exploring Fraud Detection in Travel Planningcited by 14
- 2025Can Large Language Models Identify Implicit Suicidal Ideation? An Empirical Evaluationcited by 13
- 2025LLM-based HSE Compliance Assessment: Benchmark, Performance, and Advancementscited by 8
- 2025DFIR-Metric: A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models in Digital Forensics and Incident Responsecited by 4
- 2025The Compositional Architecture of Regret in Large Language Modelscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.
8 papers.
- 2026Beyond Scalars: Evaluating and Understanding LLM Reasoning via Geometric Progress and Stabilitycited by 4
- 2026DetectRL-X: Towards Reliable Multilingual and Real-World LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 3
- 2026PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMscited by 1
- 2026Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agentscited by 1
- 2026CoT-Guard: Small Models for Strong Monitoringcited by 0
- 2026Safety, or Just Capability? A Validity Audit of Agent-Safety Benchmarkscited by 0
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelinescited by 0
- 2026RH-Detect: A Unified Benchmark for Reward Hacking Detectioncited by 0
- 2026RH-Detect: A Unified Benchmark for Reward Hacking Detection7 Oct 2026
- 2026Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agents23 Sep 2026
- 2026Safety, or Just Capability? A Validity Audit of Agent-Safety Benchmarks30 Jul 2026
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelines25 Jul 2026
- 2026PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMs3 Jun 2026
- 2026DetectRL-X: Towards Reliable Multilingual and Real-World LLM-Generated Text Detection15 May 2026
- 2026CoT-Guard: Small Models for Strong Monitoring12 May 2026
- 2026Beyond Scalars: Evaluating and Understanding LLM Reasoning via Geometric Progress and Stability11 Mar 2026